CRWV vs GLXY Stock Comparison
CoreWeave, Inc. Class A Common Stock vs Galaxy Digital
GLXY leads
GLXY leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from CRWV. Wall Street currently favors CRWV on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support GLXY, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
CoreWeave, Inc. Class A Common Stock
Galaxy Digital
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GLXY over CRWV, 43 versus 35 as of Sep 5, 2026. GLXY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while CRWV holds the stronger quality profile. GLXY also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CRWV. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GLXY today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. GLXY lead: Reversed — CRWV led by 14 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GLXY now leads by 8.
Compare CoreWeave, Inc. Class A Common Stock and Galaxy Digital across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare CRWV and GLXY against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Momentum25%36 vs 75GLXY +39
- Quality30%30 vs 4CRWV +26
- Risk Resilience15%10 vs 26GLXY +16
- Value30%53 vs 65GLXY +12
4 of 6 evidence groups favor GLXY. GLXY’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; CRWV keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
Largest factor move: Momentum +15
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1
No new signals fired.
GLXY's lead narrowed by 4 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CRWV and GLXY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
GLXY (Galaxy Digital): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
CRWV (CoreWeave, Inc. Class A Common Stock): the counter-case, on quality, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 91.5% against 80.4%.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
GLXYGLXY on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
GLXYGLXY on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
GLXYGLXY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 12 points.
Momentum
GLXYGLXY on the Momentum factor, by 39 points.
Lower downside
GLXYGLXY on Risk Resilience, by 16 points.
Analyst upside
CRWVCRWV on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors GLXY, analyst targets favor CRWV. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CRWV | GLXY | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +51.4% | +36.2% | CRWV has more room |
| Target dispersion | +92.4% | +41.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 18 | 6 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GLXY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | GLXY | 35 vs 43 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 23.9% vs -14.7%; EPS growth 18.6% vs 81%; TTM ROE -45.4% vs -5.4%; gross margin 67.4% vs 2.1% |
| Valuation | GLXY | Value 53 vs 65 |
| Technicals | GLXY | Price vs 50-day 4.4% vs 13%; vs 200-day -2.3% vs 5% |
| Risk Resilience | GLXY | Risk Resilience 10 vs 26 |
| Analyst expectations | CRWV | Target upside 51.4% vs 36.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CRWV and GLXY and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 8 points.
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on GLXY.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4GLXY lead: Reversed — CRWV led by 14 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GLXY now leads by 8.
- Today
- GLXY +8
- 35 vs 43
- 7 sessions ago
- GLXY +4
- 34 vs 38
- 30 sessions ago
- CRWV +14
- 48 vs 34
- 90 sessions ago
- CRWV +1
- 33 vs 32
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Aug 21 when GLXY moved ahead of CRWV.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.84%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (6.85%)
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (7.58%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (6.98%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
GLXY leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +5.68%, AIQ +3 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.64%, AIQ -1 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1CRWV closes the Momentum gap — currently 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to GLXY's edge.
- 2CRWV's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3GLXY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Fundamentals
Split| Metric | CRWV | GLXY |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 23.9% | -14.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 18.6% | 81% |
| Gross margin | 67.4% | 2.1% |
| Operating margin | -3% | 0.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -45.4% | -5.4% |
| Debt to equity | 10.27 | 1.79 |
Performance
GLXY leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CRWV | GLXY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 6.1% | 13.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.4% | 30.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -11% | 4.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 22.4% | 28.1% |
| Year to date | 24.8% | 17.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -2% | 8% |
Technicals
GLXY has the stronger structure| Metric | CRWV | GLXY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 28.3 | 63.9 |
| ADX (14) | 11 | 18.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 4.4% | 13% |
| Price vs 200-day | -2.3% | 5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 91.5% | 80.4% |
Risk
GLXY is the more resilient| Metric | CRWV | GLXY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.37 | 3.84 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.45 | 0.57 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.85 | 0.94 |
| Max drawdown | -57.5% | -60.7% |
| Current drawdown | -37.5% | -38.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 96.2% | 92.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -8.1% | -8.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CRWV or GLXY?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, GLXY is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 43 against CRWV's 35. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. CRWV is not without a case — it holds the better quality profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is CRWV or GLXY the better buy right now?
GLXY carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor GLXY over CRWV?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. GLXY leads Momentum by 39 points; CRWV leads Quality by 26 points; GLXY leads Risk Resilience by 16 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CRWV or GLXY?
Analyst price targets imply +51.4% upside for CRWV and +36.2% for GLXY, so the Street currently favors CRWV. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors GLXY. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, CRWV or GLXY?
GLXY is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. GLXY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 12 points. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, CRWV or GLXY?
GLXY on combined revenue and EPS growth. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, CRWV or GLXY?
GLXY on the Momentum factor, by 39 points. Momentum carries 25% of the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, CRWV or GLXY?
GLXY is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GLXY on Risk Resilience, by 16 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is CRWV more profitable than GLXY?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 67.4% vs 2.1%; operating margin -3% vs 0.8%; ttm roe -45.4% vs -5.4%. Each name leads on one measure, and there is no single profitability composite that resolves the split — which of the two reads as "more profitable" depends on whether you weight pricing power or operating leverage.
Is GLXY's lead over CRWV getting stronger or weaker?
GLXY lead: Reversed — CRWV led by 14 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GLXY now leads by 8. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has changed hands 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-21, when GLXY moved ahead of CRWV.
What would change the CRWV vs GLXY verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CRWV closes the Momentum gap — currently 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to GLXY's edge; CRWV's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; GLXY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about CRWV and GLXY?
CRWV: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. GLXY: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on CRWV is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On GLXY it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CRWV and GLXY with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.